A new list has revealed which states in the US would have the highest chance of survival if a nuclear war were to break out.
A new analysis based on fallout simulations suggests that some U.S. states would fare better than others in the event of a nuclear attack on the country's missile silos, but experts are warning that “nowhere is truly safe” if such a catastrophe were to occur.
Using historical fallout data originally published by Scientific American, Newsweek created list of states would likely be least affected if Russian nuclear warheads targeted missile silos in the U.S. heartland.
The scenario modeled an attack on facilities in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana, and North Dakota, key locations housing America’s intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
According to the simulation, the “safest states” in an average-case scenario include much of the East Coast and Southeast.
This means states such as Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Washington D.C., Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan.
Western states less impacted include: Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Idaho, and Illinois.
Radiation exposure in these regions would range from 0.001 to 0.5 grays (Gy), a unit of ionizing radiation. By contrast, states most at risk (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota) could see exposure levels from 1 to 84 Gy. Doses over 8 Gy are considered lethal.
A worst-case scenario, which accounts for wind direction on a specific day in 2021, showed a similar pattern. The safest states remained largely the same, though exposure increased slightly, ranging from 0.1 Gy to 2 Gy. Most of the rest of the country would be exposed to levels between 2 Gy and 84 Gy.
These projections are based on the detonation of one or two nuclear warheads per missile silo, each equivalent to 100,000 tons of TNT – enough to destroy hardened military targets.
But despite the detailed mapping, nuclear experts caution that the reality of such a scenario would be devastating everywhere.
“While those who live near military facilities, ICBM silos in the Midwest or submarine bases along the coasts might bear the most immediate and severe consequences of a nuclear attack, there's no question: ANY nuclear war or weapons detonation would be bad for everyone,” said John Erath, Senior Policy Director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, per Newsweek.
“Nowhere is truly ‘safe’ from fallout and other consequences like contamination of food and water supplies and prolonged radiation exposure,” he added.
Christian G. Appy, Director of the Ellsberg Initiative for Peace and Democracy, went further: “Even a relatively 'small' nuclear war would cause a nuclear winter famine that would kill at least a billion people… It is morally repugnant to think about the safest places to survive a nuclear war.”
Braden Goddard, a nuclear engineering professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, also questioned the premise, suggesting that Washington, D.C., not missile silos, would be a more likely first target in an actual conflict.
As global tensions continue to rise, the chilling conclusion from experts remains unchanged: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”